A/HRC/13/40/Add.2 that, in leaving the Macedonian Orthodox Church and establishing the “Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid”, the accused had created a schism causing religious hatred, discord and intolerance. Consequently, they sentenced Bishop Jovan to 18 months of imprisonment for undermining the position of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, conducting a service of worship in a private flat and distributing a calendar that offended the religious sentiments of the citizens. An opinion by the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief expressed concerns about the judgement’s approach which seemed to suggest that any form of religious activity that has the effect of challenging the legitimacy and supremacy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as the dominant religion was to be considered as causing religious hatred.27 In addition, according to the ODIHR opinion, the fact that Bishop Jovan had conducted religious services that prompted a hostile response by opposing believers could not amount to the commission of the criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred. Subsequently, the Supreme Court partially accepted Bishop Jovan’s appeal with regard to his freedom to perform religious rites, and reduced his prison sentence to eight months. 48. The risk that legal provisions prohibiting hate speech are interpreted loosely and applied selectively by the authorities underlines the importance of having unambiguous language and of devising effective safeguards against abuses of the law. With regard to the formulation of article 319 of the Criminal Code, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that this offence can be committed, inter alia, “in any other manner that causes or incites to national, racial or religious hatred, discord and intolerance”. The loose wording of article 319 of the Criminal Code throws the net too wide; for example, “any other manner” could possibly include scholarly remarks, genuine dissent or grievance against specific religious tenets. The legal uncertainty triggered by the formulation of article 319 of the Criminal Code may have a chilling effect on the willingness of individuals to exercise their freedom of expression as well as their freedom of religion or belief, for example by changing their religion or manifesting religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. In addition, an overreaction against the utterances of a person by any individual or group cannot constitute justification for penalizing such an expression unless the threshold of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is crossed. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that the ultimate goal is to find the most effective ways for the State to protect individuals against advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 49. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious society. During her country visit, the Special Rapporteur noted that there is by and large a high level of tolerance in its society and that the Government has shown respect for religious diversity and freedom of religion or belief. 50. The Special Rapporteur is mindful of the fact that this country is a young democracy which has gone through a number of challenges, including the internal armed conflict in 2001. While that conflict was mainly fought along ethnic lines, she was repeatedly told by her interlocutors that there was also a certain element of religious tension involved. Ethnicity and religion are separate identities, yet they do 27 16 See para. 8 of the Opinion on the Case of Bishop Jovan (Zoran Vraniskovski), Opinion-Nr.: FoRB MK/035/2005 (Expert Panel on FoRB/IU), 27 July 2005, available at www.legislationline.org/documents/id/1958.